A tenant who does not raise the objection of non-service of notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act in his written statement in answer to an application for ejectment filed by the landlord is deemed to have waived the objection and cannot be allowed to raise it subsequently.

1. This is a petition under sub-section (5) of S.15 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restrict Act (3 of 1949) (hereinafter called the Act) against the order of Shri Ved Parkash Sharma, Appellate Authority, Faridkot dated March, 3, 1969 setting aside the order of the Rent Controller after allowing the present respondents leave to amend their original written statement so as to take up a new plea to the effect that no notice terminating their tenancy having been served on them under Sec.106 of the Transfer of Property Act, the application of the petitioners was liable to be dismissed.

2. Mr. Bhagat Singh Chawla, the learned counsel for the respondents, has raised a preliminary objection to the effect that no petition for revision of an order of the rent control authorities allowing an amendment of a pleading under Order 6, Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure lies to this Court as such an order is not "an order passed under this Act" within the meaning of that expression used in Sec.16 (5) of the Act. Sub-section (5) of S.15 is in the following terms:" the High Court may, at any time, on the application of any aggrieved party or on its own motion, call for and examine the records relating to any other passed or proceedings taken under this Act for the purpose of satisfying itself as to the legality or propriety of such order or proceedings and may pass such order in relation thereto as it may deem fit. " Mr. Chawla has not been able to cite any authority in support of the proposition canvassed by him. The phraseology of section 15 (5) leaves no doubt in my mind that it is the legality or proprietary of only such an order as that can be questioned in a petition under the Act that can be questioned in a petition under that provision. But the real question to be answered, in order to decide this preliminary objection, is whether an order passed under any particular provision of the Code of Civil Procedure which applies to the rent control proceedings, in the course of such proceedings, can or cannot be said to be an order of proceedings under the Act. It is not only an order passed under the Act, in respect of which the High Court is entitled to satisfy itself (about its legality or propriety) in exercise of its revisional powers. "proceedings" under the Act would, in my opinion, include a part of any proceedings under the Act. An appeal preferred against the order of a Rent Controller and all orders passed by the Appellate authority during the course of the hearing, and adjudication of that appeal would be "proceedings taken under the Act" within the meaning of Sec.15 (5) of the Act. The order sought to be revised in this case was passed in this courts of proceedings of the appeal before the Appellate Authority and related directly to the proceedings under the Act, Pleadings of the parties are an important part of the proceedings under the Act, and an order of the Appellate Authority allowing amendment of the same would, in my opinion, be a part of the proceedings under section 15 (3) of the Act. Even otherwise, this Court is entitled in exercise of its jurisdiction under Art.227 of the Constitution to set aside any order passed by a Subordinate Court or Tribunal within its jurisdiction if the order is found to be wholly unsustainable. The first preliminary objection of MR. Chawla is therefore, repelled.

3. The second objection of a preliminary nature raised by Mr. Chawla is to the effect that no revision should be entertained or allowed against an order allowing an amendment on the analogy of the law laid down in this respect in Bal Kishan Das V/s. Om Parkash C. R. No.1091 of 1966, decided on 23-10-1968 (Punj), Baldev Singh V/s. Kapoori Lal, C. R. No.308 of 1969, decided on 28-8-1969 (Punj), Ajit Singh V/s. Uttam Singh, C. R. No.677 of 1968, decided on 1-9-1969 (Punj) and Krishnan Lal V/s. Smt. Tara Wanti, C. R. No.942 of 1968, decided on 1-9-1969 (Punj ). It is claimed that all these decisions were based on certain observ